Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
The Maryland Rematch: Ehrlich v. O'Malley
I live in a multi-cultural, majority-black area in the Baltimore suburbs; as a conservative, it is very frustrating to live in a Congressional district and state which has become almost routinely blue in national and statewide elections. Republicans seem to be competitive in only two Congressional districts, one of which had been reliably Republican, should flip back to GOP hands next month in a 2008 race rematch; Frank Kratovil in 2008 took advantage of a bitter GOP split after the GOP incumbent Wayne Gilchrest was defeated by the more conservative State Senator Andy Harris, edging Harris by less than 1% of the vote. [However, some polls show Kratovil closing the gap, with Harris focusing primarily on Kratovil's unconscionable vote for the financially irresponsible stimulus bill. If Harris loses this race, he has no one to blame but himself. He's had 2 years to reach out to the first district with a more pragmatic, less strident approach to mend fences with moderate Republicans in the district. Kratovil is running as best a campaign as a Democrat can in a purple district, playing up his vote against the corrupt Senate health reform bill and distancing himself from the progressive Democratic leadership.]
I live in the seventh district, represented by Elijah Cummings, a congenial, charismatic mainstream progressive and talented speaker whom votes consistently against my positions; I do think he votes with the majority of the district, but those policies are unfortunately against the long-term interests of his district, state, and country. The 85% votes in his early terms in office have softened somewhat (although he ran unopposed in 2006), but none of his challengers has attracted even 30% of the vote.
The statewide races tend to be more competitive; while registered Democrats have a decisive plurality edge in the state, there are enough independents and moderates to make the difference. In a tough election year for the GOP (2006), Michael Steele, the Lieutenant Governor, got 44% of the vote running for Sarbanes' open US Senate seat against a popular multi-term Congressman.
I think it's instructive to see the current campaigns being run by the Democratic statewide incumbents, US Sen. Barbara Mikulski and Governor Martin O'Malley: they are focusing on their alleged progress in promoting education, modernizing and providing tax incentives for the "right type" of Maryland businesses (stem cell, green energy, high tech, etc.) I have not seen a Wargotz spot since he won the US GOP nomination; he's trailing Mikulski by about 15%, and I don't see any clear strategy to put Mikulski on the defensive. His spoof ad pointing to her long tenure in Washington DC I discussed in an earlier post was a promising start. Among other things, I would note Mikulski's lack of leadership in the Senate (the only long-term senior senator not the chair of a committee), I would echo Erhlich's argument regarding the squandered opportunity and the unfocused, ineffective approach of the progressive Maryland Democratic leadership in dealing with the struggling economy over the past 4 years, I would particularly note Mikulski's fiscally irresponsible voting record, as a medical doctor Wargotz should find it easy to rip into Mikulski's shameful vote in favor of the corrupt Senate health care "reform" bill and explain in practical terms the real consequences of the inertia and inevitable rationing of the government bureaucracy on health care security, and I would stress that Maryland needs an independent voice in its Congressional delegation, not another knee-jerk rubber stamp for Obama, Pelosi and Reid's job-killing agenda.
But in particular, Governor Martin O'Malley's disastrous "leadership" over the past 4 years merits a drubbing by Bob Ehrlich. O'Malley is in clear trouble and (unlike many Democrats) is begging for Obama's active support in the election. Quoting from my March 23 post:
Maryland Shows the Results of "Soak-the-Rich" Tax Policies...In 2006, Maryland voters, strictly for partisan reasons, rejected reelection of popular Republican governor Bob Ehrlich in favor of the rising star Baltimore mayor, Martin O'Malley. (O'Malley used one of the Democrats' mighty weapons of all time against Ehrlich: Bush-bashing, in a bad election cycle for Republicans--i.e., resulting in Speaker Pelosi.) In a 2007 special session, O'Malley pushed through unpopular tax hikes, at the time dropping his approval ratings to the 30's....The Wall Street Journal noted in a recent editorial that raising the top state bracket by some 1.5%, instead of raising an expected $106M, resulted in a drop of $257M. A Merrill Lynch analysis noted that Maryland lost nearly $1B in its net tax base, with nearly 1 out of every 8 Maryland millionaires (no, I'm not one of them) not filing a resident tax return in 2008.Martin O'Malley is running the kind of defensive campaign we are probably seen all across the nation as desperate incumbents resort to personal attack ads, distortions of Ehrlich's record, and the cynical "pot calling the kettle black" criticisms on taxes.
Let me first discuss the latter point, because it's become a cynical defensive talking point by Democrats that I think has not been stamped out by the mainstream media. I have repeatedly answered this criticism several times in my posts, but Democrats continue to push the point. Let us be very clear: projections of the Bush deficit (passed by a Democratic Congress) for fiscal year 2009 was under $500B. After Obama took office about a third of the way into the fiscal year (without an omnibus budget deal signed by Bush), the actual deficit was roughly $1.4T--nearly triple the projected deficit. Democrats continually argue that we "can't afford" extension of the Bush tax cuts for the upper income taxpayer--even though they don't say a word about the fact that 75% of the Bush tax cuts were for the middle-class. They talk about Bush's reckless domestic spending, but they fought every step of the way to INCREASE spending without compensatory revenues (e.g., Medicare drug benefit, education, etc.) How in the world can any reasonably intelligent person not see however mediocre Bush's fiscal record was, Obama and the progressive Congressional leadership were qualitatively orders of magnitude more irresponsible.
So when O'Malley hypocritically talks about Ehrlich's higher (sales) taxes, he fails to note, of course, that Ehrlich was governing with a Democratic legislature, and in fact he passed the largest increase himself (as noted above) in Maryland history. His populist stand on electricity rates (which, under long-term contracts, had not kept pace with costs) was pure demagoguery; he knew full well that he could not force utilities to generate power below their costs; forcing utilities into bankruptcy is not only unconstitutional but doesn't address ongoing and future energy needs.
O'Malley has also tried to compare his and Ehrlich's record on education, pointing out that he's hold down tuition increases to state universities while in office. Are you saying, Mr. O'Malley, that state university costs have also not increased just like all the other colleges nationwide under the college cost bubble? And so, you've decided to shift that cost increase not on the users of the service but to other taxpayers? And, Mr. O'Malley, you should be ashamed of yourself for misrepresenting Bob Ehrlich's views and votes on education while in Congress. Most conservatives believe that public education is a state/local responsibility, not a federal one. Bob Ehrlich's votes were in the interest of maintaining state/local control of education; as a governor, he has a different perspective than as a Congressman.
Finally, O'Malley has resorted to attacking Bob Ehrlich's decision to join a law firm after his 2006 6.5-point loss for reelection by characterizing Ehrlich as a lobbyist. (That any Democrat would have the audacity to talk about special interests after Obama cut deals during the health care "reform" process, got higher campaign contributions from the Wall Street firms (not to mention Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which of course didn't make it into the financial reform law), and has been involved in government intervention activities like the auto bankruptcies, blatantly pandering to union interests, not to mention playing winners and losers with the economic stimulus package (e.g., green energy companies, teachers, etc.), truly blows one's mind.) I do not know whether Ehrlich has been doing lobbyist services, but as tax-paying entities, companies have a constitutional right to have their interests represented, and certainly Mr. Ehrlich has the right to make a living to support his family.
Ehrlich has been running some decent ads, although I saw many more O'Malley vs. Ehrlich ads. He has a decent, positively-oriented one presenting a long-term plan for the state of Maryland's future over the coming decade. He has also cut a very effective ad noting job losses and company closures during O'Malley's tenure and sky-high tax increases.
I leave it to the reader to guess whom I will be voting for next month.
A Word to My International Readers...
I was listening to an older podcast of ABC This Week with Christiane Amanpour; she was expressing the incredulity of international observers whom see Obama piling up an enviable legislative record, the US economy and stock market doing better than many others, and yet Obama's ratings have fallen below 50%. What is the matter with these Americans? What more can they expect out of Obama?
Let me provide some answers. First, only 1 out of 5 American voters are progressives; it is true that Obama had a published progressive wishlist, but he did not run as a progressive--he ran primarily as a moderate alternative against highly unpopular President Bush. It was truly amazing to see him "moderate" his positions on gun control, offshore drilling, etc. They also were tired of partisan bickering. What happened after the election was pure power play progressive politics. I'm sure that progressives would argue they are deeply disheartened by Obama's accomplishments--they wanted a far bigger stimulus package, they wanted a stronger step towards health care nationalization (at minimum a public option), etc., and I'm sure most foreigners would see the reforms as fairly moderate, particularly in comparison to what exists outside the US. But there never was a mandate for Obama's policies; much of Obama's appeal is on the personal level, not the policy level; there are numerous polls that show even with approval ratings of 44 to 48%, the support for various policies run at least 5 points worse.
In fact, McCain was actually leading Obama just before the economic tsunami; that was a more reliable test of the alleged mandate of Obama's policies. When the economic tsunami hit, the game was all over. Americans were worried about their jobs and a certain safety net (e.g., unemployment and other relief). The Democrats have been the party of the social safety net. What American voters thought they were voting for was (1) effectual policies to reverse the economic slump and (2) interim relief services. They were not voting on cap and trade or high-speed trains in Florida and Nevada or risks of change to their popular private health insurance plans.
Second, Obama and the progressive Democrats hastened in passing a huge stimulus bill which was subsequently seen as poorly constructed, with too many questionable expenditures and unrealistic expectations about unemployment. Whereas the private sector was laying off people and freezing or cutting salaries and expenses and state and local governments were paring services, the federal government, with a massive deficit, was expanding head count, giving raises, etc.
Third, as Obama and the Congress deliberated on reforms of health care, there was no real bipartisan approach but the Senate Democrats came to a partisan consensus, sealed with widely discredited political deal making. As the GOP unexpectedly won three high-profile statewide elections in purple or reliable Democratic states (the governors of Virginia and New Jersey, and Scott Brown's remarkable upset for the late Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts US Senate seat), Obama and the Democrats did something unprecedented in American political history--they attempted to expand entitlements relying solely on partisan votes, in the face of public opposition to the corrupt Senate bill. Instead of normal reconciliation where filibuster rules apply, there was an abuse of the budget reconciliation process so House Democrats could cut a side deal in exchange for approving the Senate version "as is".
Finally, the only leverage the Republicans had with the American rules underlying the Senate filibuster, which was a way to assert political minority rights and force bipartisanship. The Senate elected 59 of the 60 Democrats needed to bypass any filibuster. The Senate Democrats then lured Arlen Specter to cross the aisle (and agreeing to support him for the Democratic nomination this year for reelection, which ultimately didn't work out), attaining the 60th vote. So when Christiane starts waxing enthusiasm over Obama's legislative record, one has to keep in mind that Senate Republicans have to vote unanimously (all 41, including Scott Brown) to stop anything; this would not happen on any genuinely bipartisan bill. You also have 4 retiring Senate Republicans (Kentucky, Ohio, Florida, and New Hampshire) free to vote their conscience and a few moderates (e.g., the Maine senators). So of course Obama is going to get a lot of stuff through; he got 3 GOP defections on the stimulus bill, for example. Yet on several notable bills (e.g., climate change), the Senate hasn't had the head count because of Democratic defections as well. The current stalemate on extension of the Bush tax cuts (with the class warfare exclusion for higher income people) also is due to bipartisan resistance. Even if you look at the accomplishments like the health care bill, Obama specifically ran on no mandates for insurance coverage. You can argue that the resulting legislation is certainly not what the Democrats ran on....
Political Humor
"A new poll found that 41 percent of Americans don't know who the Vice President is. In reponse, Joe Biden was like, "All right, at least give me a hint." –Jimmy Fallon
[Jimmy, you got the right quote, wrong conversation. Joe Biden kept complaining to Obama this summer that he was bored and there was nothing to do. Obama promised to give Biden something really important to do if he could go just 24 hours without another gaffe, and Joe pleaded to know what it was...]
A few originals:
- Joe Biden prepared for his current role as Vice President. In fact, he watched every episode in the entire series of Miami Vice at least twice ...
- You can tell Joe Biden has really been studying Norman Vincent Peale's "The Power of Positive Thinking". There was "Recovery Summer", now followed by "Victory Fall"
Herman's Hermits, "Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter" (I was a cute kid when this song came out...)
